Crime: Victims

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to commission research into victims' satisfaction levels with sentences handed down by courts.

Crispin Blunt: The Ministry of Justice previously commissioned the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, which asked a subset of victims and witnesses about their experiences, perceptions and satisfaction with different aspects of the criminal justice system, including (for those whose cases resulted in convictions) whether they thought the sentence was fair. A Ministry of Justice research report summarising the main findings from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey 2009-10, and examining the factors associated with satisfaction, will be published in 2012.
	In addition, the Ministry of Justice partially funds the British Crime Survey (BCS), which gathers information on the public's perceptions of and victims' satisfaction with various aspects of the criminal justice system, including confidence and attitudes to sentencing. The BCS 2010-11 findings show that 39% of victims were confident that the criminal justice system is effective (compared with 44% of non-victims) and 56% of victims were confident that the criminal justice system is fair (compared with 63% of non-victims).
	The Ministry of Justice has previously published BCS analysis which covered public attitudes to sentencing and the victim satisfaction with the police and CJS agencies. The report ‘Public confidence in the Criminal Justice System: findings from the British Crime Survey 2002/03 to 2007/08’ can be found at:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj/public-confidence-cjs.htm
	The Ministry of Justice reviews its research priorities regularly. We are currently considering whether to commission further examination of the BCS data on perceptions of sentencing. A final decision whether to proceed with this will be made in the context of wider research needs, relative priorities and the available budget.

Cybercrime: Prosecutions

Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  what assessment his Department has made of the conviction rate for those charged for improper use of (a) public electronic communications networks and (b) social networking sites;
	(2)  what assessment his Department has made of the effects of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 on the conviction rate for people charged with improper use of (a) public electronic communications networks and (b) social networking sites;
	(3)  what assessment he has made of the operation of section 127(3) of the Communications Act 2003; and how many proceedings have been brought under this section of the Act since its implementation.

Crispin Blunt: Defendants proceeded against at the magistrates court and found guilty at all courts, and the conviction ratio for offences under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 in England and Wales from 2006 to 2010, can be viewed in the table.
	Data held centrally on the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database does not include information about the circumstances behind each case, other than that which may be identified from a statute. It is not possible to separately identify those specific cases where the defendant was proceeded against for using a social networking site.
	The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment on the conviction ratio under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, as the effective working of the Communications Act 2003 comes within the remit of the Department for Culture Media and Sport.
	
		
			 Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts and the conviction ratio(%) (1) , under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (2) , England and Wales, 2006-10 (3, 4) 
			  2006 2007 20085 2009 2010 
			 Proceeded against 550 680 872 1,126 1,511 
			 Found guilty 377 498 693 873 1,186 
			 Conviction ratio % 69 73 79 78 78 
			 (1) The proportion of defendants proceeded against who were found guilty. (2) Includes offence: Communications Act 2003 under section 127 Sending or causing sending of grossly offensive/indecent/obscene/menacing or false message/matter by electronic communications network. (3) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (4) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (5) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice.

Prisons: Private Sector

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what rules govern the recruitment of prison governors by private companies that are interested in bidding to run (a) public sector prisons and (b) a prison at which the individual was previously governor.

Crispin Blunt: The Business Appointment Rules, set out in the Civil Service Management Code, place requirements on all serving civil servants, and on former civil servants for two years after their last day of service, who intend to take an outside appointment or employment after leaving the civil service. Before accepting any new appointment or employment, they must consider whether the rules require them to apply for approval. Serving prison governors, and ones who left the civil service up to two years previously, would be required to apply if their circumstances met one or more of the criteria set out in the rules. Applications from individuals at the level of prison governor are considered by the Department.
	The rules would apply equally in all cases; including where a current or former prison governor was seeking employment, with a private company, to manage a former public sector prison establishment, and including where the individual had previously been the governor of that establishment. The nature of the prospective appointment would, however, be taken into account when determining whether any conditions should be placed on the approval of the application.

Sexual Offences: Criminal Injuries Compensation

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what consideration is given to any particular difficulties which may be experienced by rape and adult sexual assault victims in (a) reporting offences to the police and (b) giving evidence in court when applying the criteria which are set out in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the guidance for applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Jonathan Djanogly: CICA compensate blameless victims of violent crime according to the rules Parliament set out in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (the Scheme). The paragraphs you refer to are in CICA's guide to the compensation scheme, which CICA produces in order to help members of the public apply for compensation. They explain how CICA applies paragraphs 13 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (b) of the Scheme. I have today placed a copy of CICA's internal guidance on these Scheme paragraphs in the parliamentary Library in response to question 82225.

Sexual Offences: Criminal Injuries Compensation

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused (a) at first instance, (b) at review and (c) on appeal claims for compensation by claimants for rape and sexual adult assault compensation where there has not been a complaint to police, a charge brought or a prosecution in the last year for which figures are available.

Jonathan Djanogly: CICA do not have figures showing how many people were refused compensation categorised by reference to specific crimes. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (the Scheme), which was approved by Parliament in 2008, provides for awards to be assessed primarily by reference to criminal injuries. Injury descriptions, from the Scheme's 'tariff of injuries', are therefore used as the primary basis for calculating and recording payments actually made, and these would only be applied to someone's case if they were assessed as eligible to receive the associated payment.

Employment and Support Allowance

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the effects of time-limiting of contributory employment and support allowance on health and social care budgets.

Chris Grayling: The Department published an impact assessment of the proposal to time limit contributory employment and support allowance (ESA) to one year for those in the work related activity group. This is available at the following link:
	http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
	The main effect is an increased eligibility for income-related benefits which are administered by the Department for Work and Pensions.
	The impact assessment also stated that there may be some related impacts for health budgets. For example, those who become eligible for income-related ESA may also be eligible for passported benefits such as free NHS prescriptions. However, the costs of this have not been fully incorporated in the overall costs in the impact assessment due to the uncertainty over the likely take-up of these benefits for the groups affected and variability in the devolved Administrations.

Employment and Support Allowance

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for employment and support allowance (ESA) were refused in the last 12 months; how many had zero points allocated; how many such claims were by cancer patients; how many claimants were recalled for a further medical assessment for ESA eligibility after 12 months; how many such people were again refused; how many of them subsequently appealed; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: Decisions on entitlement to employment and support allowance (ESA) using the work capability assessment (WCA) rest solely with the Department's decision makers taking into account the medical assessment reports from Atos and any other relevant information.
	Table 1 as follows provides details of the number of work capability assessments held between June 2010 and May 2011. The figures are broken down for all initial and all repeat WCAs held.
	A repeat WCA is the second or subsequent WCA undertaken on an existing, continuous ESA claim. These claimants will have already been assessed as having a limited capability for work at their initial WCA and the repeat WCA will assess if their capability for work has changed.
	The table also shows the number of claims that are assessed as being fit for work (FFW) and of these, the number that were awarded zero points. The final column presents the number of claims whose main health condition is cancer related (neoplasms), that were found fit for work and scored zero points at the WCA. The data on health conditions is based on the information recorded on the medical certificate ('fitnote') provided by a person's GP when they first make a claim for ESA. This represents what their GP considers to be the reason a person cannot work at that time. However, many people applying for ESA will in fact have more than one condition, these conditions may affect each other and may change over time.
	
		
			 Table 1. WCA outcomes for assessments held between June 2010 and May 2011 
			 Initial or repeat WCA Total WCA held Total FFW outcomes Total FFW with zero points Total FFW neoplasms with zero points 
			 Initial 447,500 264,800 202,000 2,000 
			 Repeat 158,100 50,800 35,100 1,600 
			 Total 605,700 315,600 237,100 3,700 
		
	
	Table 2 as follows provides information on the number of completed appeals against a fit for work decision for claims starting between September 2009 and August 2010 (the latest 12 monthly period for which data is available). Again, this has been broken down for all initial and all repeat WCAs held.
	
		
			 Table 2. ESA  Appeals against a FFW decision.  Claims starting between September 2009 and August 2010 
			  Number 
			 Appeal against initial WCA 91,200 
			 Appeal against repeat WCA 6,000 
			 Total 97,200 
			 Notes: 1. The Department regularly publishes official statistics on the employment and support allowance (ESA) work capability assessment at the national level. The latest report, published in October 2011 and can be found here: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_wca 2. The data presented above comes from benefit claims data held by the Department for Work and Pensions, functional assessment data from Atos Healthcare and appeals data from the Tribunals Service. 3. Data on appeals includes ESA claims started from September 2009 up to the end of August 2010 (the latest month where we have sufficient volumes of appeals heard to include in the publication) where the person claiming has been assessed to be Fit for Work, they subsequently appeal the Department's decision and the appeal has been heard by the Tribunals Service. 4. Due to the time it takes for appeals to be submitted to the Tribunals Service and heard, it is likely that there are more appeals that have not yet been heard. Therefore these figures should be treated as emerging findings rather than final at this stage. 5. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 and are consistent with the official statistics publication referred to in footnote 1 above.

Employment and Support Allowance: Atos Healthcare

Shaun Woodward: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints about medical assessments for employment and support allowance conducted by Atos Healthcare were recorded in (a) St Helens South and Whiston constituency, (b) Merseyside and (c) England in each year since 2008.

Chris Grayling: Atos Healthcare does not record complaints by parliamentary constituency or by a regional area such as Merseyside but by Medical Services Centre (MSC).
	Therefore, data has been provided for Bootle MSC (the MSC responsible for ESA referrals in the St Helens South and Whiston constituency and the Merseyside area) and for the nine MSCs in located in England (Birmingham, Bootle, Bristol, Croydon, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Wembley).
	
		
			 ESA only 
			 Region 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1) 
			 Bootle MSC 0 81 118 136 
			 English MSCs 1 1377 1939 1574 
			 (1) To date.

Employment Schemes

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will investigate reports that prime contractors to the Work programme are referring clients to volunteer centres without making payments to those centres; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: DWP hold contracts with prime providers, we do not therefore get involved in the arrangements between prime providers and other organisations. Those terms are a matter for the interested parties to agree.
	While DWP encourages Work programme providers to forge strategic relationships with local partners, providers and their subcontractors should not be approaching voluntary organisations if they do not have an agreement with them.

Housing Benefit

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect on predicted savings to the public purse of exempting the first underoccupied bedroom from the size criteria for housing benefit.

Steve Webb: Exempting the first underoccupied bedroom for housing benefit claimants living in the social rented sector, would reduce the numbers likely to be affected by the size criteria in 2013-14 from approximately 670,000 working-age households, to around 150,000.
	The effect of this would be to reduce anticipated savings in housing benefit expenditure by more than £350 million in 2013-14.

Jobcentre Plus

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether Jobcentre Plus has employed staff to visit other EU countries to offer advice to EU nationals considering applying for jobs in the UK since its inception.

Chris Grayling: Jobcentre Plus employs 12 staff who specialise in giving advice to jobseekers looking for work in another EU member state. This is part of our commitment to the network of public employment services in Europe called EURES. EURES—the European Employment Services network, was established in 1994 by the European Commission to facilitate the free movement of workers within the EU. Jobcentre Plus EURES Advisers organise job fairs for UK jobseekers wanting to work in Europe and attend job fairs in other EU countries to inform EU nationals about the UK labour market. Their advice is centred on deterring unplanned migration to the UK and discouraging applications to sectors where there is already intense competition and high unemployment.
	The legal base for EURES dates back to Commission Decision 93/569/EEC of 22 October 1993 on the implementing of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community as regards, in particular, the establishment of the EURES network.
	Jobcentre Plus has by far the least number of EURES advisers per capita of all the participating countries (12 compared to 100 in both France and Germany). There are more than 800 EURES advisers in the European public employment services. In the UK team, as well as the 12 EURES advisers there are six other staff members whose responsibilities cover a wide range of duties. In total, those staff who work on EURES related work are:
	2 Band Es—EURES manager, EURES delivery manager,
	2 Band Ds—EURES adviser line manager, EURES co-ordinator,
	1 Band C—Budget co-ordinator and 1 Band C—Communications co-ordinator
	12 Band C—EURES advisers (11 in post, one vacant)
	All Jobcentre Plus travel costs, subsistence and other operational costs for EURES activities are reimbursed by the European Commission through an annual grant agreement with DWP (annual value of €350,000).
	Jobcentre Plus exchanges vacancies with other EU countries through the EURES website:
	www.eures.europa.eu
	From July to November 2011 Jobcentre Plus EURES advisers attended 35 job fairs in 19 EU/EEA countries (France: five; Italy: four; Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Norway: three; Poland: two; Ireland, Netherlands, Estonia, Malta, Iceland, Portugal, Czech republic, Hungary, Greece, Latvia, Austria, Slovenia: one).

Personal Records: Departmental Coordination

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the devolved administrations about the Tell Us Once Service with particular reference to whether they can participate.

Chris Grayling: The Tell Us Once Programme has worked very closely with officials from the devolved Administration in Scotland, initially to support the introduction of TUO there, and have consulted with and kept them informed throughout all stages of the piloting and implementation. A letter was sent to MSPs on 14 November advising them of the national rollout of TUO in Scotland. To date 13 local authorities (40.6%) are live with TUO, 29 (90.6%) of LAs have agreed to deliver the service with only three LAs remaining undecided on whether to offer the service.
	In Wales the Tell Us Once programme has worked closely with the Office of the Chief Information Officer, initially to support the take up of the Tell Us Once service among unitary authorities in Wales and more recently to keep them informed of the progress that has been made in the delivery of the service across all 22 Welsh local authorities.
	My officials have been engaged with officials in Northern Ireland to discuss how the TUO service may be made available there in future. This level of engagement will continue and further consultations will take place once the service has been implemented across England, Wales and Scotland.

Universal Credit

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what definition he plans to use of in work when setting the universal credit household benefit cap.

Chris Grayling: We are introducing the benefit cap to promote fairness between those in and out of work and to increase incentives for people to move into work or increase their hours of employment. In support of these objectives, households which contain a member who is eligible for working tax credit will be exempt from the cap. We are still considering the precise criteria for a corresponding exemption under universal credit.

Welfare Reform: Northern Ireland

Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the potential effects of his welfare reform proposals in Northern Ireland.

Chris Grayling: Northern Ireland has had a separate social security system and a separate National Insurance Fund for many years. Responsibility for social security, child support and pensions in Northern Ireland rests with their Department for Social Development. It is, therefore, a matter for the Minister for Social Development to arrange for any assessment of the possible effects of the welfare reform proposals in Northern Ireland.

Welfare Reform: Northern Ireland

Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the potential effects of his planned welfare reform proposals.

Chris Grayling: Responsibility for Social Security in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Executive. However, as required under Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act, the Department of Work and Pensions keeps in regular contact with the Northern Ireland Executive on the subject of welfare reform at both ministerial and official levels.
	This includes recent trips to Northern Ireland by both the Minister for Disabled People the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), and my noble Friend the Lord Freud. These trips included meetings with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive. Officials also meet regularly.

Work Capability Assessment

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consideration he has given to people undertaking a work capability assessment who suffer from medical conditions that fluctuate.

Chris Grayling: The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) has been specifically designed to give people with conditions which fluctuate the opportunity to explain how their condition varies over time. The questionnaire that customers are sent has been redesigned so that people are directly asked if their mental or physical functions vary, and asked to give more details of how this affects them as an individual.
	The health care professionals who carry out the WCA are trained to ask about and, take account of fluctuation. The assessment is not a snapshot—if a person cannot carry out a function repeatedly and reliably they will be treated as unable to carry out that function at all.
	The activities and descriptors used in the assessment were developed in consultation with medical experts and representative groups to ensure that they are appropriate for all conditions. The consultation involved considerable discussion about the variability of some conditions and we have now made some changes in this area.
	We are committed to continuous improvement of the WCA to ensure the assessment is as fair and accurate as possible. Professor Malcolm Harrington, a highly respected occupational physician, is due shortly to publish his second independent review of the WCA. Recognising that particular concerns have been raised about the way the WCA works for people with fluctuating conditions, Professor Harrington asked leading charities, including the MS Society, to make recommendations to refine the descriptors used in the WCA as part of this review.
	We look forward to publishing Professor Harrington's recommendations.

Work Capability Assessment: Multiple Sclerosis

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consideration he has given to having only medical practitioners who are specialists in multiple sclerosis carrying out work capability assessments for sufferers of the disease.

Chris Grayling: The contract between DWP and Atos Healthcare requires that face to face WCA assessment of claimants with multiple sclerosis must be carried out by a doctor.
	There is however no requirement for Atos to employ specialist doctors to conduct assessments because entitlement to benefit is based upon the functional impairment associated with the underlying medical condition, rather than the nature of the medical condition itself.
	For this reason all doctors who carry out assessments for benefit purposes are trained in disability assessment medicine and this includes assessment of people with multiple sclerosis.
	All doctors working for Atos are provided with an evidence based protocol on multiple sclerosis as part of their initial training. In addition, there is learning set on multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease available to all doctors as part of Atos’ Continuing Medical Education programme.

2010 Drugs Strategy

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she has set terms of reference for the annual review of the 2010 Drugs Strategy; and whether she plans to publish the findings of the review.

James Brokenshire: The Government's Drug Strategy "Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life", published in December 2010, included a commitment to an annual review. This will review the strategy and provide a status update on the first full year of implementation. We are aiming to publish by the end of March 2012.

Bolivia: Drugs

Julian Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 
	(1)  Department what assessment she has made of the effect on the maintenance of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of (a) Bolivia re-acceding to the Convention with a reservation on coca leaf and (b) Bolivia's re-accession being denied due to their requirement of a reservation on coca leaf;
	(2)  if she will take into account (a) the right of Bolivia to make use of article 14 of the 1988 UN Convention on Drug Trafficking stating that signatories shall take due account of traditional licit uses, where there is historic evidence of such use and (b) Bolivia's need to adhere to its constitution and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in her response to the Bolivian application for re-accession to the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs with a reservation on coca leaf.

James Brokenshire: The Government are currently considering how to respond to Bolivia's withdrawal from and forthcoming reapplication to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and in doing so is taking into account all relevant international agreements, including the UN convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007, as well as the Bolivian Constitution. The Government are also assessing the effect of all possible outcomes on the maintenance of the convention.

British Nationality

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics April-June 2011 table cz.09, refusals of citizenship by reason, how many refusals were due to the applicant being not of good character as a result of committing a criminal offence in the UK.

Damian Green: The available statistics are given in the following table. It is not possible to separately identify refusals of British citizenship due to a criminal conviction within the published figures before December 2007 when a specific code for this outcome was introduced to the UK Border Agency Case Information Database.
	
		
			 Refusals of British citizenship by selected reason 
			 Year of refusal Not of good character—criminal conviction Total refusals and withdrawals 
			 2002 n/a 8,331 
			 2003 n/a 10,555 
			 2004 n/a 13,818 
			 2005 n/a 16,642 
			 2006 n/a 15,309 
		
	
	
		
			 2007 7 15,628 
			 2008 1,397 9,086 
			 2009 1,515 10,251 
			 2010 1,185 7,974 
			 n/a = Not available. Notes: 1. Derived from table cz.09 published in ‘Immigration Statistics—April to June 2011’. 2. Data for 2010 are provisional figures. 3. Data presented relates to number of persons. 4. Cases dealt with in the United Kingdom. Source: Migration Statistics 
		
	
	The latest Home Office immigration statistics on persons refused British citizenship, from which the data in this reply are derived, are given in table 'cz.09' of the statistical release 'Immigration Statistics April-June 2011'. This publication is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q2-2011/

British Nationality

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  with reference to the citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics April-June 2011 table cz.09, refusals of citizenship by reason, how many applicants not of good character were subsequently removed from the UK;
	(2)  with reference to the citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics April-June 2011 table cz.01, citizenship applications, grants and refusals, how many (a) applicants for British citizenship and (b) successful applicants for British citizenship were individuals who originally came to the UK as an asylum seeker in each of the last five years.
	(3)  with reference to the citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics April-June 2011, table cz.01 citizenship applications, grants and refusals, how many (a) applicants and (b) successful applicants for British citizenship were from individuals who had spent a period of time illegally residing in the UK in each of the last five years.

Damian Green: The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost as it would require a substantial data matching exercise which would exceed the cost threshold.

British Nationality

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics April-June 2011, table cz.01 citizenship applications, grants and refusals, how many (a) applicants and (b) successful applicants for British citizenship were from each country of origin or birth in each of the last five years.

Damian Green: The following tables provide information relating to the country of birth for the applications for British citizenship and those successful, for the last five years:
	
		
			 Applications received for British citizenship and successful applications by country of origin or birth 2006-10 
			  Applications received 
			 Country of origin or birth 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 
			 Aden 9 12 4 2 5 32 
			 Afghanistan 5,321 9,259 4,950 4,151 4,894 28,575 
			 Albania 777 871 1,142 1,255 1,300 5,345 
			 Algeria 802 1,008 995 1,064 1,496 5,365 
			 American Samoa — — — 1 — 1 
			 Andorra 1 — — 1 — 2 
			 Angola 726 893 1,105 716 617 4,057 
			 Anguilla 26 14 9 4 8 61 
			 Antigua and Barbuda 18 20 20 21 9 88 
			 Argentina 135 120 158 201 158 772 
			 Armenia 106 110 67 102 71 456 
			 Aruba — 2 — 2 — 4 
			 Australia 2,840 2,277 2,029 2,188 2,196 11,530 
			 Austria 27 28 32 28 33 148 
			 Awaiting country to be added to list — — 1 — — 1 
			 Azerbaijan 159 188 181 144 131 803 
			 Bahamas 17 13 21 18 22 91 
			 Bahrain 79 59 67 127 87 419 
			 Bangladesh 1,329 2,677 5,247 11,372 7,504 28,129 
			 Barbados 136 107 105 86 60 494 
			 Belarus 151 156 185 259 241 992 
			 Belgium 66 61 37 42 71 277 
			 Belize 17 16 15 14 11 73 
			 Benin 16 16 19 13 25 89 
			 Bermuda 2 3 1 2 3 11 
			 Bhutan 25 25 32 25 20 127 
			 Bolivia 46 73 90 87 61 357 
			 Bosnia and Herzegovina 200 184 118 147 112 761 
			 Botswana 25 39 41 68 72 245 
			 Brazil 450 593 726 849 1,015 3,633 
			 British Guiana 1 1 — — — 2 
			 British Virgin Islands 15 11 12 1 5 44 
			 Brunei 63 40 57 54 112 326 
			 Bulgaria 490 952 939 1,744 1,761 5,886 
			 Burkina Faso 5 4 10 6 16 41 
			 Burma 15 17 14 22 11 79 
			 Burundi 449 533 532 362 278 2,154 
			 Byelorussian SSR — — — — — 0 
			 Cambodia 1 6 12 17 19 55 
			 Cambodia (Kampuchea) 14 16 9 10 16 65 
			 Cameroon 329 420 414 419 458 2,040 
			 Canada 1,090 915 758 868 843 4,474 
			 Cape Verde 3 4 3 4 6 20 
			 Cayman Islands 32 23 14 11 12 92 
			 Central African Republic 5 7 2 3 3 20 
			 Ceylon — 1 — — — 1 
			 Chad 44 23 24 23 15 129 
			 Chile 89 73 103 93 74 432 
			 China 1,716 2,527 2,959 4,956 5,507 17,665 
			 Colombia 804 1,436 1,148 887 841 5,116 
			 Comoros 2 1 2 1 1 7 
			 Congo 323 312 222 252 256 1,365 
			 Congo (Brazzaville) 13 16 11 11 8 59 
		
	
	
		
			 Cook Islands 1 — 1 1 — 3 
			 Costa Rica 15 12 17 11 12 67 
			 Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) 247 346 333 335 400 1,661 
			 Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) 5 9 4 4 12 34 
			 Croatia 296 287 168 187 135 1,073 
			 Cuba 88 93 95 100 108 484 
			 Cyprus 153 142 104 131 139 669 
			 Czechoslovakia 2 5 1 5 7 20 
			 Czech Republic 78 73 46 63 99 359 
			 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 3 1 3 8 16 31 
			 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1,281 1,579 1,526 1,622 1,778 7,786 
			 Denmark 32 34 31 21 45 163 
			 Djibouti 9 12 14 12 22 69 
			 Dominica 56 58 68 47 55 284 
			 Dominican Republic 48 54 60 82 68 312 
			 Dutch East Indies — — 1 — — 1 
			 East Timor — 3 1 3 — 7 
			 Ecuador 350 651 608 453 426 2,488 
			 Egypt 618 552 516 751 917 3,354 
			 El Salvador 9 8 20 13 12 62 
			 Equatorial Guinea 4 3 10 4 4 25 
			 Eritrea 460 564 559 568 816 2,967 
			 Estonia 55 47 25 28 54 209 
			 Ethiopia 798 974 780 738 832 4,122 
			 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 4,620 1,650 108 37 16 6,431 
			 Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland — — — 1 — 1 
			 Fiji 35 90 97 77 102 401 
			 Finland 31 32 33 37 30 163 
			 France 289 306 251 283 319 1,448 
			 French Guiana 2 3 1 6 2 14 
			 French Polynesia — 1 — — — 1 
			 Gabon 7 13 5 10 11 46 
			 Gambia 253 365 369 504 503 1,994 
			 Georgia 152 133 128 171 148 732 
			 German Democratic Republic 2 1 1 1 — 5 
			 Germany 374 413 377 406 446 2,016 
			 Ghana 1,886 2,802 3,055 3,781 3,712 15,236 
			 Gibraltar 17 21 17 16 15 86 
			 Gilbert Islands — — — 1 — 1 
			 Goa — — 2 1 — 3 
			 Greece 109 218 159 159 178 823 
			 Greenland — — — 1 — 1 
			 Grenada 51 67 56 63 67 304 
			 Guadeloupe 3 2 2 3 4 14 
			 Guam — — — — 1 1 
			 Guatemala 19 22 26 20 11 98 
			 Guinea 34 75 88 95 97 389 
			 Guinea-Bissau 5 10 11 20 21 67 
		
	
	
		
			 Guyana 234 260 261 322 435 1,512 
			 Haiti 11 6 8 7 1 33 
			 Honduras 19 26 13 14 29 101 
			 Hong Kong 485 656 743 1,922 2,287 6,093 
			 Hungary 96 89 52 83 236 556 
			 Iceland 2 5 1 11 7 26 
			 India 9,423 12,726 13,594 22,023 25,334 83,100 
			 Indonesia 136 166 136 192 186 816 
			 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 3,324 3,457 2,616 2,655 2,731 14,783 
			 Iraq 5,217 5,068 9,158 4,592 4,854 28,889 
			 Ireland 224 195 100 126 142 787 
			 Israel 375 386 360 425 386 1,932 
			 Israeli Occupied Territories 9 — 4 — — 13 
			 Italy 197 204 162 179 216 958 
			 Jamaica 2,280 3,226 2,944 2,736 2,566 13,752 
			 Japan 130 150 142 172 146 740 
			 Jordan 265 128 126 180 140 839 
			 Kazakhstan 112 108 128 122 133 603 
			 Kenya 2,776 2,386 1,933 2,194 1,999 11,288 
			 Kiribati 1 — 1 — 3 5 
			 Korea 19 17 8 18 11 73 
			 Kosovo 437 292 621 1,195 1,262 3,807 
			 Kosovo 322 164 676 161 95 1,418 
			 Kuwait 354 255 255 346 321 1,531 
			 Kyrgyzstan 46 63 55 59 36 259 
			 Lao People's Democratic Republic 6 7 10 17 14 54 
			 Latvia 73 72 46 54 139 384 
			 Lebanon 646 489 476 613 656 2,880 
			 Lesotho 12 19 19 21 30 101 
			 Liberia 176 182 178 160 178 874 
			 Libya 90 61 44 41 36 272 
			 Libya (Arab Republic) 202 286 270 374 308 1,440 
			 Libyan Arab Republic — — — 1 — 1 
			 Liechtenstein 1 — — 1 — 2 
			 Lithuania 110 109 65 106 206 596 
			 Luxembourg 2 5 3 5 3 18 
			 Macao Special Administrative Region of China 11 21 8 10 9 59 
			 Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of) 158 190 167 167 149 831 
			 Madagascar 10 19 13 13 16 71 
			 Malawi 162 231 203 247 300 1,143 
			 Malaya 2 1 1 — — 4 
			 Malaysia 408 595 745 966 964 3,678 
			 Maldives 1 3 2 8 4 18 
			 Mali 9 5 7 8 12 41 
			 Malta 44 23 19 16 26 128 
			 Marshall Islands — — 1 — — 1 
			 Martinique 1 1 2 1 3 8 
			 Mauritania 1 5 3 8 2 19 
			 Mauritius 568 801 684 928 829 3,810 
			 Mayotte — — 1 — — 1 
			 Mexico 131 119 146 225 228 849 
		
	
	
		
			 Moldova, Republic of 96 104 114 127 141 582 
			 Monaco 1 — — 2 7 10 
			 Mongolia 31 54 68 60 65 278 
			 Montenegro 28 6 2 15 1 52 
			 Montserrat 4 1 1 2 6 14 
			 Morocco 426 539 608 640 733 2,946 
			 Mozambique 49 70 80 84 71 354 
			 Myanmar 139 162 167 199 222 889 
			 Namibia 63 72 58 90 62 345 
			 Nationality currently unknown 1 — — — — 1 
			 Nepal 825 863 975 1,424 2,294 6,381 
			 Netherlands 71 102 66 75 100 414 
			 Netherlands Antilles 2 2 1 3 1 9 
			 New Caledonia — 1 — — — 1 
			 New Zealand 1,315 1,182 1,051 1,140 1,194 5,882 
			 Nicaragua 12 5 13 13 12 55 
			 Niger 6 5 3 8 6 28 
			 Nigeria 4,272 5,077 4,887 5,742 6,896 26,874 
			 Niue — — — 1 — 1 
			 Northern Mariana Islands 1 — — — 1 2 
			 Northern Rhodesia — — — 2 2 4 
			 Norway 27 17 18 19 20 101 
			 Nyasaland 1 1 — — 1 3 
			 Oman 32 26 48 75 84 265 
			 Pakistan 6,401 9,296 11,953 18,184 20,834 66,668 
			 Palestinian Authority 88 71 109 200 174 642 
			 Panama 10 10 32 15 20 87 
			 Panama Canal Zone — — — — 1 1 
			 Papua New Guinea 20 22 15 19 21 97 
			 Paraguay 9 2 7 11 7 36 
			 Peru 137 177 201 198 230 943 
			 Philippines 7,202 8,590 6,258 9,465 8,260 39,775 
			 Poland 385 474 279 489 1,351 2,978 
			 Portugal 128 98 92 115 104 537 
			 Puerto Rico — 1 4 7 3 15 
			 Qatar 24 28 16 40 28 136 
			 Republic of Montenegro 12 6 35 41 28 122 
			 Republic of Serbia 187 358 396 349 285 1,575 
			 Reunion 3 1 — 1 3 8 
			 Rhodesia 32 29 28 27 15 131 
			 Romania 3 4 6 783 786 1,582 
			 Romania 510 461 403 112 123 1,609 
			 Russian Federation 1,544 1,487 1,393 1,517 1,610 7,551 
			 Rwanda 536 549 386 281 223 1,975 
			 Samoa 3 3 2 4 5 17 
			 Sao Tome and Principe 3 1 — 1 1 6 
			 Saudi Arabia 511 426 398 731 832 2,898 
			 Senegal 31 34 37 48 64 214 
		
	
	
		
			 Serbia and Montenegro 140 150 5 4 5 304 
			 Seychelles 58 60 56 70 45 289 
			 Sierra Leone 1,359 1,701 1,220 945 901 6,126 
			 Singapore 127 124 160 184 167 762 
			 Slovakia 119 100 56 75 176 526 
			 Slovenia 6 10 2 6 9 33 
			 Solomon Islands — 1 1 8 2 12 
			 Somalia 8,179 6,429 7,430 6,301 5,327 33,666 
			 South Africa 6,769 6,937 5,694 6,952 6,702 33,054 
			 Southern Rhodesia 7 4 4 2 5 22 
			 Southern Yemen 1 1 2 — — 4 
			 South Korea (Rep of Korea) 224 483 438 741 615 2,501 
			 South West Africa 1 — — — — 1 
			 Soviet Union (USSR) — 3 10 7 9 29 
			 Spain 158 134 116 121 130 659 
			 Sri Lanka 3,025 5,300 3,531 4,332 4,179 20,367 
			 St Christopher and Nevis — 1 1 — — 2 
			 St. Helena 1 — — — — 1 
			 St Kitts and Nevis 47 24 18 22 12 123 
			 St. Lucia 66 129 144 110 144 593 
			 St Vincent and the Grenadines 58 152 156 100 76 542 
			 Sudan 780 665 659 882 812 3,798 
			 Suriname 3 4 — 4 2 13 
			 Swaziland 15 28 21 31 50 145 
			 Sweden 43 68 56 57 69 293 
			 Switzerland 130 89 84 102 74 479 
			 Taiwan (Republic of China) 153 150 196 233 226 958 
			 Tajikistan 12 8 12 16 22 70 
			 Tanganyika and Zanzibar 4 5 3 4 4 20 
			 Thailand 558 1,044 1,286 1,837 2,184 6,909 
			 The Syrian Arab Republic 343 288 289 419 427 1,766 
			 Tibet 4 1 3 15 4 27 
			 Timor-Leste — — — 1 — 1 
			 Togo 85 95 63 93 65 401 
			 Tonga 1 9 12 5 9 36 
			 Trinidad and Tobago 414 427 443 549 488 2,321 
			 Tunisia 119 158 173 201 206 857 
			 Turkey 3,168 3,348 5,184 6,249 4,208 22,157 
			 Turkish controlled area of Cyprus — — — 1 — 1 
			 Turkmenistan 11 23 28 27 34 123 
			 Turks and Caicos Islands — — — — 1 1 
			 Uganda 1,103 1,104 934 918 884 4,943 
			 Ukraine 860 918 802 963 997 4,540 
			 Union of Myanmar — — — — 2 2 
			 United Arab Emirates 197 159 152 259 329 1,096 
			 United Kingdom 18,298 14,129 13,331 18,625 21,881 86,264 
		
	
	
		
			 United Rep of Tanzania 581 574 481 497 476 2,609 
			 United States of America 2,421 2,370 2,271 2,548 2,585 12,195 
			 United States Virgin Islands — — 2 1 1 4 
			 Unknown—officially designated 29 17 8 13 12 79 
			 Uruguay 26 14 16 13 26 95 
			 USSR 192 184 141 180 195 892 
			 Uzbekistan 75 77 85 99 90 426 
			 Vanuatu — 1 — — 1 2 
			 Venezuela 96 149 157 200 194 796 
			 Vietnam 212 313 389 436 493 1,843 
			 Western Sahara 1 — 2 — — 3 
			 Yemen 559 405 424 689 582 2,659 
			 Yemen Arab Republic 2 — — 3 — 5 
			 Yugoslavia 212 112 122 139 85 670 
			 Zambia 453 632 559 766 798 3,208 
			 Zimbabwe 3,037 5,755 6,569 6,987 5,905 28,253 
			  378 459 264 241 202 1,544 
			 Total 140,925 157,112 156,104 193,979 199,826 847,946 
		
	
	
		
			  Successful (grants) (1) 
			 Country of origin or birth 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 
			 Aden 8 10 4 — 2 24 
			 Afghanistan 2,994 9,588 5,130 4,545 4,783 27,040 
			 Albania 699 1,014 883 1,339 1,247 5,182 
			 Algeria 894 1,045 853 1,199 1,332 5,323 
			 American Samoa — — — 1 — 1 
			 Andorra 1 — — 1 — 2 
			 Angola 626 884 848 699 589 3,646 
			 Anguilla 12 29 10 — 9 60 
			 Antigua and Barbuda 14 21 16 21 11 83 
			 Argentina 127 141 130 218 165 781 
			 Armenia 82 126 65 88 82 443 
			 Aruba 1 — — 1 — 2 
			 Australia 3,423 2,780 2,172 2,712 2,456 13,543 
			 Austria 30 29 27 26 36 148 
			 Awaiting country to be added to list — — — — 1 1 
			 Azerbaijan 141 221 149 174 143 828 
			 Bahamas 16 17 16 18 15 82 
			 Bahrain 88 57 49 140 88 422 
			 Bangladesh 3,724 2,223 3,693 12,003 7,783 29,426 
			 Barbados 137 109 88 98 58 490 
			 Belarus 165 181 150 290 230 1,016 
			 Belgium 64 64 37 39 55 259 
			 Belize 13 16 9 19 11 68 
			 Benin 14 14 13 12 24 77 
			 Bermuda 2 3 2 3 2 12 
			 Bhutan 21 34 28 26 21 130 
			 Bolivia 69 76 60 101 67 373 
			 Bosnia and Herzegovina 228 205 99 156 107 795 
			 Botswana 33 32 38 58 78 239 
		
	
	
		
			 Brazil 548 621 596 928 999 3,692 
			 British Guiana 1 1 1 — — 3 
			 British Virgin Islands 14 12 8 4 4 42 
			 Brunei 58 37 53 61 93 302 
			 Bulgaria 516 1,039 710 1,761 1,793 5,819 
			 Burkina Faso 6 3 5 9 14 37 
			 Burma 26 18 10 19 13 86 
			 Burundi 337 581 455 360 289 2,022 
			 Byelorussian SSR 1 — — — — 1 
			 Cambodia — 5 9 16 20 50 
			 Cambodia (Kampuchea) 15 26 8 10 14 73 
			 Cameroon 324 429 331 430 440 1,954 
			 Canada 1,586 1,264 978 1,176 996 6,000 
			 Cape Verde 2 1 4 4 6 17 
			 Cayman Islands 18 30 15 9 10 82 
			 Central African Republic 5 3 4 3 3 18 
			 Ceylon — 1 — — — 1 
			 Chad 42 27 20 23 13 125 
			 Chile 103 86 92 98 75 454 
			 China 2,143 2,953 2,333 5,178 5,472 18,079 
			 Colombia 1,371 1,603 1,002 973 837 5,786 
			 Comoros 1 2 2 1 1 7 
			 Congo 384 330 192 219 255 1,380 
			 Congo (Brazzaville) 11 16 9 8 12 56 
			 Cook Islands 1 — 1 1 — 3 
			 Costa Rica 17 13 12 17 11 70 
			 Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) — — — — — 0 
			 Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) 264 334 282 345 400 1,625 
			 Croatia 483 312 136 199 121 1,251 
			 Cuba 107 107 85 104 108 511 
			 Cyprus 395 159 95 129 132 910 
			 Czechoslovakia 4 4 1 5 7 21 
			 Czech Republic 88 73 46 55 83 345 
			 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2 2 2 7 15 28 
			 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1,230 1,547 1,190 1,440 1,708 7,115 
			 Denmark 22 36 24 29 38 149 
			 Djibouti 12 13 9 15 19 68 
			 Dominica 67 50 58 55 54 284 
			 Dominican Republic 36 66 53 74 70 299 
			 Dutch East Indies — — 1 — — 1 
			 East Timor — 2 1 2 1 6 
			 Ecuador 717 632 499 478 438 2,764 
			 Egypt 539 646 432 834 883 3,334 
			 El Salvador 12 8 14 16 12 62 
			 Equatorial Guinea 2 5 10 4 4 25 
			 Eritrea 450 599 428 545 817 2,839 
			 Estonia 70 73 17 33 43 236 
			 Ethiopia 732 1,012 651 765 821 3,981 
			 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 5,166 2,404 268 52 22 7,912 
		
	
	
		
			 Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland — — — — — 0 
			 Fiji 35 81 83 75 97 371 
			 Finland 25 34 27 39 29 154 
			 France 259 303 232 269 300 1,363 
			 French Guiana 1 2 1 6 1 11 
			 French Polynesia — — — — — 0 
			 Gabon 7 9 8 7 11 42 
			 Gambia 243 328 315 495 488 1,869 
			 Georgia 156 158 101 177 146 738 
			 German Democratic Republic 2 1 — 1 — 4 
			 Germany 370 428 329 436 412 1,975 
			 Ghana 2,969 2,751 2,495 3,976 3,599 15,790 
			 Gibraltar 15 21 18 15 19 88 
			 Gilbert Islands — — — 1 — 1 
			 Goa 3 — 1 2 — 6 
			 Greece 88 204 139 165 177 773 
			 Greenland — — — 1 — 1 
			 Grenada 62 72 47 62 64 307 
			 Guadeloupe 2 1 2 3 4 12 
			 Guam — — — — — 0 
			 Guatemala 16 28 25 21 9 99 
			 Guinea 26 72 71 86 100 355 
			 Guinea-Bissau 9 10 6 24 14 63 
			 Guyana 254 282 234 333 430 1,533 
			 Haiti 9 7 7 8 1 32 
			 Honduras 13 27 16 12 30 98 
			 Hong Kong 1,128 1,353 1,266 2,204 2,205 8,156 
			 Hungary 107 92 46 71 212 528 
			 Iceland 2 7 — 12 5 26 
			 India 14,285 13,353 10,828 23,002 25,350 86,818 
			 Indonesia 178 169 119 194 192 852 
			 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 3,400 4,225 2,160 2,794 2,505 15,084 
			 Iraq 3,733 5,029 8,456 5,166 4,182 26,566 
			 Ireland 220 208 87 133 128 776 
			 Israel 455 416 283 471 383 2,008 
			 Israeli Occupied Territories 4 17 4 — — 25 
			 Italy 189 217 142 186 201 935 
			 Jamaica 2,472 3,221 2,485 2,849 2,425 13,452 
			 Japan 183 160 111 190 146 790 
			 Jordan 256 196 111 184 151 898 
			 Kazakhstan 117 129 102 150 128 626 
			 Kenya 2,922 2,579 1,669 2,338 1,973 11,481 
			 Kiribati 1 — 1 1 1 4 
			 Korea 24 20 6 20 9 79 
			 Kosovo 38 27 244 1,039 1,287 2,635 
			 Kosovo 307 111 630 211 113 1,372 
			 Kuwait 320 303 212 381 309 1,525 
			 Kyrgyzstan 44 67 51 67 39 268 
			 Lao People's Democratic Republic 10 8 8 17 12 55 
			 Latvia 79 92 38 56 118 383 
			 Lebanon 571 736 375 663 607 2,952 
			 Lesotho 11 17 16 19 30 93 
			 Liberia 134 191 158 157 163 803 
		
	
	
		
			 Libya 123 75 47 53 32 330 
			 Libya (Arab Republic) 272 264 268 413 272 1,489 
			 Libyan Arab Republic — — — 1 — 1 
			 Liechtenstein — 1 — 1 — 2 
			 Lithuania 129 123 43 87 176 558 
			 Luxembourg 3 4 3 3 5 18 
			 Macao Special Administrative Region of China 11 19 10 9 10 59 
			 Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of) 129 196 130 188 141 784 
			 Madagascar 9 17 13 12 19 70 
			 Malawi 195 209 176 257 289 1,126 
			 Malaya 2 1 — 2 — 5 
			 Malaysia 709 690 663 1,120 1,049 4,231 
			 Maldives 4 2 1 7 5 19 
			 Mali 6 6 3 7 14 36 
			 Malta 47 25 17 15 29 133 
			 Marshall Islands — — — 1 — 1 
			 Martinique 2 — 3 1 3 9 
			 Mauritania 1 5 3 7 1 17 
			 Mauritius 576 835 585 973 810 3,779 
			 Mayotte 2 — 1 — — 3 
			 Mexico 138 135 116 239 220 848 
			 Moldova, Republic of 86 137 93 134 143 593 
			 Monaco — 1 — 2 7 10 
			 Mongolia 41 61 59 63 63 287 
			 Montenegro 29 10 2 9 6 56 
			 Montserrat 4 1 1 1 6 13 
			 Morocco 501 532 523 758 708 3,022 
			 Mozambique 79 65 56 91 70 361 
			 Myanmar 156 171 134 219 221 901 
			 Namibia 63 78 38 99 68 346 
			 Nationality currently unknown — 2 — — — 2 
			 Nepal 826 932 906 2,021 2,259 6,944 
			 Netherlands 65 98 47 79 86 375 
			 Netherlands Antilles 4 3 1 3 — 11 
			 New Caledonia — — 1 — — 1 
			 New Zealand 1,706 1,413 1,121 1,408 1,389 7,037 
			 Nicaragua 8 10 12 13 11 54 
			 Niger 6 4 1 9 7 27 
			 Nigeria 5,149 5,096 3,876 5,956 6,462 26,539 
			 Niue — — — 1 — 1 
			 Northern Mariana Islands — 1 — — 1 2 
			 Northern Rhodesia 2 — — 1 2 5 
			 Norway 24 24 13 12 17 90 
			 Nyasaland 2 1 — — 1 4 
			 Oman 34 24 31 86 85 260 
			 Pakistan 9,541 7,539 8,893 19,464 20,364 65,801 
			 Palestinian Authority 80 97 73 192 193 635 
			 Panama 15 7 26 23 13 84 
		
	
	
		
			 Panama Canal Zone — — — — 1 1 
			 Papua New Guinea 24 28 10 24 22 108 
			 Paraguay 8 4 7 11 8 38 
			 Peru 131 213 167 222 217 950 
			 Philippines 7,786 9,606 4,792 10,383 8,413 40,980 
			 Poland 467 463 220 371 1,172 2,693 
			 Portugal 111 90 71 110 109 491 
			 Puerto Rico — 1 3 5 6 15 
			 Qatar 24 27 17 43 31 142 
			 Republic of Montenegro 1 4 28 36 31 100 
			 Republic of Serbia 162 257 357 376 282 1,434 
			 Reunion 1 2 — 1 2 6 
			 Rhodesia 41 30 24 32 16 143 
			 Romania — 1 1 664 742 1,408 
			 Romania 544 484 339 197 124 1,688 
			 Russian Federation 1,725 1,700 1,234 1,797 1,576 8,032 
			 Rwanda 411 581 313 296 228 1,829 
			 Samoa — 5 1 5 5 16 
			 Sao Tome and Principe 3 1 — 1 1 6 
			 Saudi Arabia 416 504 306 768 829 2,823 
			 Senegal 24 34 28 51 55 192 
			 Serbia and Montenegro 247 174 15 4 5 445 
			 Seychelles 56 62 50 73 49 290 
			 Sierra Leone 1,296 1,804 1,030 960 872 5,962 
			 Singapore 155 163 150 216 186 870 
			 Slovakia 136 114 49 53 155 507 
			 Slovenia 8 11 4 4 10 37 
			 Solomon Islands 1 1 1 9 2 14 
			 Somalia 7,584 6,416 6,447 7,336 5,271 33,054 
			 South Africa 6,986 7,430 4,757 7,611 6,630 33,414 
			 Southern Rhodesia 9 4 3 3 5 24 
			 Southern Yemen 3 2 2 — — 7 
			 South Korea (Rep of Korea) 247 488 365 769 658 2,527 
			 South West Africa 1 — — — — 1 
			 Soviet Union (USSR) — 3 8 9 7 27 
			 Spain 148 137 106 120 135 646 
			 Sri Lanka 4,607 6,030 2,992 4,196 4,199 22,024 
			 St Christopher and Nevis — 1 1 — — 2 
			 St. Helena — 1 — — — 1 
			 St Kitts and Nevis 39 29 18 29 17 132 
			 St. Lucia 72 123 121 120 129 565 
			 St Vincent and the Grenadines 52 120 151 116 78 517 
			 Sudan 806 650 521 862 792 3,631 
			 Suriname 1 4 — 4 2 11 
			 Swaziland 10 30 16 30 50 136 
			 Sweden 37 60 52 50 72 271 
			 Switzerland 129 97 69 100 74 469 
			 Taiwan (Republic of China) 175 176 164 269 214 998 
			 Tajikistan 14 10 12 15 24 75 
		
	
	
		
			 Tanganyika and Zanzibar 3 6 3 6 1 19 
			 Thailand 822 991 1,056 1,955 2,162 6,986 
			 The Syrian Arab Republic 325 324 251 457 401 1,758 
			 Tibet 6 2 3 14 5 30 
			 Timor-Leste — — — 1 — 1 
			 Togo 99 87 49 91 75 401 
			 Tonga 2 10 8 8 9 37 
			 Trinidad and Tobago 469 453 362 604 490 2,378 
			 Tunisia 117 173 138 233 196 857 
			 Turkey 4,719 4,177 4,191 6,613 4,249 23,949 
			 Turkish controlled area of Cyprus — — — 1 — 1 
			 Turkmenistan 10 27 24 30 37 128 
			 Turks and Caicos Islands — — — — 1 1 
			 Uganda 1,070 1,128 815 917 839 4,769 
			 Ukraine 810 1,150 655 1,060 988 4,663 
			 Union of Myanmar — — — — 2 2 
			 United Arab Emirates 180 166 131 262 339 1,078 
			 United Kingdom 20,580 16,353 12,363 19,323 21,869 90,488 
			 United Rep of Tanzania 736 577 399 525 446 2,683 
			 United States of America 2,854 2,535 1,975 2,736 2,562 12,662 
			 United States Virgin Islands — — — 1 1 2 
			 Unknown—officially designated 20 8 5 3 11 47 
			 Uruguay 24 19 13 15 27 98 
			 USSR 195 243 101 226 177 942 
			 Uzbekistan 75 87 67 112 95 436 
			 Vanuatu — 1 — — 2 3 
			 Venezuela 112 163 118 219 197 809 
			 Vietnam 184 304 282 453 439 1,662 
			 Western Sahara 1 — 2 — — 3 
			 Yemen 568 455 354 690 583 2,650 
			 Yemen Arab Republic 2 — — 3 — 5 
			 Yugoslavia 280 128 94 156 79 737 
			 Zambia 459 623 487 777 792 3,138 
			 Zimbabwe 2,593 5,521 5,536 7,269 5,809 26,728 
			  373 630 308 246 209 1,766 
			 Total 160,473 167,296 132,287 206,667 197,221 863,944 
			 (1) The successful (grants) figures do not relate to the applications received figures in the same time period. Source: Local management information provided by UK Border Agency, North West Region Planning and MI Team and is not a National Statistic. As such it should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

Departmental Manpower

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff of the UK Border Agency are based at each office location (a) in Scotland, (b) in each of the English regions, (c) in Wales, (d) in Northern Ireland and (e) overseas; and what the functions are of each office.

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency is divided into regions and units that are based on UK-wide functions. Staff in functional areas work in offices located across the nations and regions of the UK as well as overseas, as set out in the following table:
	
		
			  Full-time equivalent staff 
			 Border Force  
			 Functions are; Passport control, freight and people searching at ports, airports and international rail terminals, Olympics programme, Electronic border management.  
			 North region (including Scotland and Northern Ireland) 1018 
			 Heathrow 1585 
			 South and Europe 2690 
			 English central region 2314 
			   
			 Immigration Group  
			 Functions are In-country immigration control, internal applications and citizenship, work permits, points based system, immigration enforcement, removals and asylum processes.  
			 Scotland and Northern Ireland 282 
			 North East, Yorkshire and Humberside 1826 
			 North West 1558 
			 Midlands 652 
			 South West and Wales 296 
			 London and the South East 3662 
			   
			 Criminality and Detention Group  
			 Functions are; Detention, FNP removals, criminal casework and criminal investigations.  
			 Scotland 19 
			 London and the South East 1338 
			 East of England 22 
			 North West 217 
			 North East 131 
			 South West 13 
			 Midlands 47 
			   
			 International Group  
			 Functions are; overseas immigration control, visa issuing processes, risk and airline liaison officers.  
			 Overseas 1709 
			 London and the South East 339 
			   
			 Other functions  
			 Resource Management Group manages the UK Border Agency infrastructure and IT provision; management information and commercial and procurement activities. Human Resources; industrial relations, reward, professional standards, staff development, building security, customer strategy, complaints and correspondence Intelligence; Intelligence operating model and system, special cases Communications; communications online customer services, compliance promotion, staff engagement and shared services to Home Office. Chief Executive's Office and Strategy.  
			 London and the South East 1498 
			 North West 130 
			 Wales 9 
			 Scotland 10 
			 North East 77 
		
	
	
		
			 Midlands 18 
			   
			 Some of these Groups also have small numbers of staff in other regions that are not shown separately for data protection and security reasons Less than 20

Detention Centres

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which contractors provide security for the UK Border Agency's pre-departure accommodation locations.

Damian Green: UK Border Agency pre-departure accommodation is presently available at one site, namely Cedars at Pease Pottage near Crawley in West Sussex. The service provider for Cedars is G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Ltd.

Detention Centres

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average individuals spend at UK Border Agency pre-departure accommodation prior to their removal.

Damian Green: Under the new family returns process, families have been accommodated initially at Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre and since 17 August 2011 at Cedars pre-departure accommodation.
	The average length of time spent in pre-departure accommodation is not calculated as averages are subject to distortions by a small number of cases with large values. Data ranges are used instead as these give a more balanced view.
	Published statistics on people detained in the pre-departure accommodation at Cedars by length of detention during the third quarter of 2011 will be published on 24 November 2011 in the Immigration Statistics: July to September 2011 release; a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. The release is also available from the Home Office Science Research and Statistics web pages at:
	http://homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/migration/migration-statistics1/
	One family was accommodated at Tinsley House in its capacity as a pre-departure accommodation. The length of stay was 3.16 days, or 75 hours and 45 minutes. This figure is based on management information, and does not form part of our publicised statistics.

Detention Centres

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the longest period that an individual spent in pre-departure accommodation prior to removal has been since May 2010.

Damian Green: Pre-departure accommodation came into effect on 1 March 2011 as part of the new family returns process. Under this process families have been accommodated initially at Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) and since its opening on 17 August 2011, solely at Cedars pre-departure accommodation.
	The longest period that an individual was accommodated under the family returns process was at Tinsley House IRC. The length of stay was 3.16 days, or 75 hours and 45 minutes. This figure is based on management information, and does not form part of our publicised statistics.
	Published statistics on people detained in pre-departure accommodation at Cedars by length of detention during the third quarter of 2011 will be published on 24 November 2011 in the Immigration Statistics: July to September 2011 release; a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. The release is also available from the Home Office Science Research and Statistics webpages at:
	http://homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/migration/migration-statistics1/

Detention Centres: Children

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether removals of children enforced in Scotland are made directly from a Scottish departure port or via a UK Border Agency facility elsewhere in the UK.

Damian Green: Removals will be through a Scottish point of departure where suitable flights are available. Where there are no suitable flights from Scotland removal will occur through one of the larger UK airports.
	Scottish airports may be used to move a family to another airport in the UK prior to removal or to pre-departure accommodation.

Detention Centres: Children

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Independent Family Returns Panel has made any recommendations to (a) the UK Border Agency or (b) her Department that a family should not be detained.

Damian Green: The Independent Family Returns Panel was established in March 2011 as part of the new process for managing family returns. It advises the UK Border Agency on the method of removal from the UK of individual families when an ensured return is necessary.
	The UK Border Agency no longer detains families in immigration removal centres as part of ensured returns (other than, exceptionally, for high-risk or criminal cases). Since August, the options for ensured return include (but are not limited to) holding families for a short period in pre-departure accommodation, known as Cedars.
	Plans are drawn up by the UK Border Agency and referred to the panel. After discussion with the UK Border Agency, the panel advises on whether the plan (including any proposal to use Cedars) represents an appropriate method of return which takes sufficient account of the safeguarding and welfare needs of the children. The panel may advise that the plan be amended and there is a presumption that this advice will be accepted.
	If, exceptionally, the UK Border Agency does not accept the panel's advice, the case will be referred to me, as the Minister for Immigration, for a decision. The panel will include in its annual report any instances where its advice is not accepted. To date, there have been no instances where the UK Border Agency has not accepted the panel's advice so no referrals to me have been made.
	The UK Border Agency retains the ability to detain families at the border while enquiries are made and/or pending a return flight. The panel considers the overall handling of this process to assess whether detention is being kept to a minimum, but it does not advise on individual cases.

Detention Orders: Females

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many and what proportion of women leaving prison and issued with an IS91 Detention Order were (a) deported from and (b) permitted to stay in the UK in each of the last five years; and what the (i) average and (ii) longest length of time spent in detention under an IS91 Order was for each group in each year;
	(2)  how many female prisoners were issued with an IS91 Detention Order within (a) one month, (b) two weeks, (c) one week and (d) 24 hours of their release date from HM Prison Service in the latest period for which figures are available.

Damian Green: The following table sets out the number and proportion of women leaving prison and issued with an IS91, who were removed from the UK or who were allowed to remain. The table also provides information on the time spent in detention. Please note that data prior to 2009 is not available.
	
		
			  2009 2010 2011 (1) 
			 Total number of women issued with an IS91 4204 3703 3130 
			     
			 Number of women issued with an IS91 who meet the criteria for deportation 509 349 300 
			 Of those:    
			 Removed    
			 Number 233 152 166 
			 Percentage 46 44 55 
			     
			 Allowed to remain:    
			 Number 18 21 17 
			 Percentage 4 6 6 
		
	
	
		
			     
			 Cases ongoing:    
			 Number 255 176 117 
			 Percentage 50 50 39 
			     
			 Of those removed from the UK:    
			 Average length of time in detention (days) 63 56 52 
			 Longest length of time in detention (days) 723 876 146 
			     
			 Of those allowed to remain in the UK:    
			 Average length of time in detention (days) 121 100 51 
			 Longest length of time in detention (days) 349 344 154 
			 (1) YTD—January to October 2011 
		
	
	Establishing the time period within the release date from HMP Prison Service in which a female was issued with an IS91 would require the analysis of a large volume of electronic records, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

Human Trafficking: Telephone Services

Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2011, Official Report, column 54W, on human trafficking, what costs were associated with the operation of the Metropolitan Police's trafficking victim helpline in (a) October 2011 and (b) each financial year since it was created.

Damian Green: The Metropolitan Police Service's trafficking free phone line cost £128.40 to install and has been operational since April 2011. The first year costs are currently calculated at £189 or £15.75 per month. Staff costs are nominal. Approximately 40 calls have been received on the line since April, of which five have been confirmed as victims of trafficking and referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

Immigration

Daniel Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate she has made of the number of non-UK EU nationals who reside in the UK.

Damian Green: The subject raised in the hon. Member's question is a matter for the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
	Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2011
	As Director General for the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to respond to your Parliamentary Question to Secretary of State for the Home Department, asking what recent estimate she has made of the number of non-UK EU nationals who reside in the UK.
	The most recent estimate of the number of non-UK EU nationals who reside in the UK is 2,003,000 with a margin of error of +/- 61,000. This estimate, along with other published Population by Country of Birth and Nationality estimates, is based on the Annual Population Survey and relates to the 12 month period of January to December 2010. These can be found on the ONS website, table 2.1 & 2.2 at:
	www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-222711
	The margin of error refers to the 95 per cent confidence interval and is a measure of the uncertainty associated with making inferences from a sample.

Iran: Nuclear Weapons

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report of the International Atomic Energy Authority on Iran's development of nuclear missiles.

Alistair Burt: The UK fully supports the work of the director general and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in producing this important report. They have handled a very sensitive issue with care and rigour, and have worked diligently to verify and validate the information that the report draws on. In response to the report, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution expressing its
	“deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program”;
	these are concerns we share.
	The report itself clearly indicates that Iran has failed to address the IAEA's “serious concerns” about the “credible” information available to it that
	“indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.
	It also presents evidence that provides a compelling picture of Iranian work on nuclear weapons technologies—not only up to 2003 but also beyond—and work on the continuation and expansion of its uranium enrichment programme, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Finally, the report clearly documents Iran's repeated failures to co-operate with the agency. Iran must cease its attempts to deflect the legitimate concerns of the international community and co-operate with the agency, fully and without delay, to resolve them.

Jordan: Foreign Policy

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the aims and objectives are of UK policy towards Jordan.

Alistair Burt: The UK's policy towards Jordan reflects the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's priorities of Safeguarding Britain's national security; building Britain's prosperity and supporting British nationals around the world.
	The Arab Spring has shown that increased political participation by citizens and greater economic opportunity offering them a greater stake in their state is the surest route to long-term regional stability. To this end the UK continues to support the implementation of political and economic reforms in Jordan, including through the Arab Partnership. Additionally the UK works closely with Jordan on issues of mutual interest, including regional foreign policy, counter-terrorism and defence.
	In support of building Britain's prosperity, on 15 November the Prime Minister and King Abdullah agreed to launch a UK-Jordan Economic Dialogue; which will seek ways to support both the Jordanian economy and the UK's prosperity agenda.

Lebanon: Foreign Policy

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the aims and objectives are of UK policy towards Lebanon.

Alistair Burt: The UK's policy towards Lebanon reflects the FCO's priorities of Safeguarding Britain's national security; building Britain's prosperity and supporting British nationals around the world.
	Working to reduce conflict, the UK's aim is to support a stable, independent and sovereign Lebanon. To this end we have increased our assistance to the Lebanese army and police, as key institutions supporting Lebanese stability.
	The UK continues to believe the best way to achieve peace and stability in Lebanon and the wider region is through the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, including respect of Lebanese sovereignty by other countries in the region. The UK also fully supports the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in its work to end impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon. It is important Lebanon fulfils its obligations to the Tribunal by paying its portion of the approved budget as the Prime Minister emphasised during his meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Miqati on 7 November.
	Lebanon remains a business hub for the region and a strong consumer economy, with UK exports at £398.7 million for 2010, on a par with those to Kuwait, and significantly higher than Jordan. We continue to explore the potential for UK companies to play a greater role in Lebanon's ambitious plans to boost their infrastructure sector.
	We continue to ensure that embassy has plans to support for British nationals in Lebanon in place, these plans are well exercised and has the confidence of British citizens in Lebanon as well as Ministers in the UK.

Charities

Eilidh Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants her Department made to charitable organisations in each of the last five years.

Norman Baker: The Department does not hold information on which of its suppliers are charitable organisations, I therefore regret that information on the amounts of grant paid to charitable organisations is not available except at disproportionate cost.

Railway Stations: Tees Valley

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there are any plans to close railway ticket offices in Teesside.

Theresa Villiers: An independent study by Sir Roy McNulty on the value for money of the railways recommended closure of ticket offices at category E stations.
	The aim of the study was to examine the overall cost structure of all elements of the rail sector to identify the options for improving value for money to both passengers and taxpayers, while continuing to expand capacity and drive up passenger satisfaction with the railway.
	Government are currently considering the findings of this independent report but no decisions have yet been made.

Transport: Passengers

Stuart Andrew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  how much funding was allocated to passenger transport executives by (a) her Department and (b) other bodies in 2010-11;
	(2)  how much funding was allocated by passenger transport executives in 2010-11.

Norman Baker: In 2010-11 the Department for Transport allocated £566.16 million to passenger transport executives, either directly or via their respective integrated transport authorities. This includes funding for local major schemes and rail support but does not include the £70 million the Department provides to Merseytravel for the operation of the devolved Merseyrail network.
	The following table gives a breakdown of this figure by passenger transport executive:
	
		
			 Passenger transport executive Funding allocated (£000) 
			 Centro (West Midlands) 37,584 
			 Greater Manchester PTE 260,744 
			 Merseytravel 39,820 
			 Metro (West Yorkshire) 94,130 
			 Nexus (Tyne and Wear) 85,138 
			 South Yorkshire PTE 48,745 
			 Total 566,161 
		
	
	While some of the variation in the above table will be due to the differing geographical sizes of the passenger transport executive areas (as well as other factors), funding for local major schemes has a large effect. For instance, Greater Manchester received £137 million in 2010-11 for local major schemes while four of the other passenger transport executives received no money.
	The Department does not hold information on funding allocated to passenger transport executives from other bodies.

Serious Fraud Office

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Attorney-General 
	(1)  how many (a) police officers and (b) support staff were employed by the Serious Fraud Office in each of the last five years;
	(2)  what proportion of Serious Fraud Office investigations proceed to (a) charges being made and (b) conviction in each of the last five years.

Dominic Grieve: The SFO does not employ any police officers. SFO investigative staff come from a range of different backgrounds and some may have previously worked as police officers.
	Staff numbers for non-operational roles in each of the last five years, as at 31 March are:
	
		
			  Staff (number) 
			 Currently as of 18 November 2011 61 
			 2010-11 64 
			 2009-10 57 
			 2008-09 (1)41 
			 2007-08 54 
			 (1) A management approved voluntary early retirement scheme exercise took place in March 2009 which may have impacted these figures 
		
	
	The SFO receives hundreds of referrals from all sources, including the general public every year. The SFO accepts only the most complex and difficult cases as shown in their published selection criteria which can be found online at;
	http://www.sfo.gov.uk/victims/individual-victims/can-i-report-a-fraud-or-corruption-directly-to-the-sfo.aspx
	and refers the rest to other law enforcement organisations or regulators as appropriate. Records are not maintained on the number which are referred to other public organisations. Cases that are accepted undergo an intense three-month, focused research into the allegations made. At the end of this period the SFO reviews the case in depth to establish the most suitable way of taking it forward—for example, a full criminal investigation or civil recovery action. Approximately 10% of cases are stopped at this stage. All charging decisions are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
	Once defendants have been charged, the case is very unlikely to be stopped. This has happened only once in the last four years.
	All active investigations in the SFO undergo case reviews at least quarterly. This ensures the investigation into allegations remain focussed. Cases being prosecuted are kept regularly under review in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
	
		
			 Conviction rates in the last five years 
			  Percentage of defendants found guilty 
			 2010-11 84 
			 2009-10 90 
			 2008-09 78 
			 2007-08 68 
			 2006-07 58

Departmental Judicial Review

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what applications for judicial review have been made against her Department (a) in the last Parliament and (b) since May 2010; whether each such application (i) succeeded, (ii) failed and (iii) remains pending; what legal costs were incurred by her Department for each such application; in each failed application whether she applied for costs against the applicant and whether they were (A) awarded and (B) paid; whether her Department (1) paid for and (2) offered to pay for the legal costs incurred by each such applicant; and what the total cost to the public purse was of payment of the legal costs for each such applicant.

Richard Benyon: Since May 2010, 10 applications have been made for judicial review against the Department: one was successful, four failed, two were settled and three remain pending.
	The legal cost (of counsel) incurred for each to date is as follows—fee notes are outstanding in many of these cases and the figures do not include estimates for accruals.
	
		
			  £ 
			 Case 1 450 
			 Case 2 0 
			 Case 3 20,885 
			 Case 4 870 
			 Case 5 0 
			 Case 6 35,812 
			 Case 7 1,780 
			 Case 8 480 
			 Case 9 1,085 
			 Case 10 4,970 
		
	
	Costs were applied for in each of the four failed applications, awarded in three, and have been paid in two (so far).
	The Department did not pay for, or offer to pay, the costs of any of the applicants whose application failed.
	The information as to what applications for judicial review were made against the Department in the last Parliament is not readily available and the cost to obtain it would be disproportionate.

Departmental Manpower

Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff work on the (a) infectious diseases: animal and plant, (b) flooding and (c) food and water workstream of the Capabilities Programme; and what the staffing level was in each of the last 10 quarters.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA has four work streams under the Capabilities programme: Animal disease; Flooding; Food supply; and Water supply. Plant disease is not a work stream within this programme. Full-time equivalent data on each of the work streams is listed in the following table:
	
		
			 Quarter ending Animal disease Flooding Food Water 
			 As of 4 November 2011 18.4 1 1.5 1.8 
			 30 September 2011 18.4 1 1.5 2.6 
			 30 June 2011 20.4 1 1.5 2.6 
			 31 March 2011 20 1 1.5 2.6 
			 31 December 2010 19 1 1.5 2.6 
			 30 September 2010 23.83 1 1.5 2.6 
			 30 June 2010 22.83 1 1.5 2.6 
			 31 March 2010 25.83 1 1.5 2.6 
			 31 December 2009 27.53 1 1.5 2.6 
			 30 September 2009 26.73 1 1.5 2.6 
			 30 June 2009 27.23 1 1.5 2.6 
			 Note: Numbers reflect numbers of staff working in the core Department. Animal disease figures are significantly higher as, for the other work streams, the bulk of the activity which supports the programme objectives is carried out by others outside DEFRA.

Departmental Meetings

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many meetings she has had with representatives of (a) social enterprises, (b) charities, (c) large private sector businesses and (d) small and medium-sized private sector businesses since May 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: We do not keep records for the categories used in this question. However between April 2011 to date, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), has met with more than 13 organisations with charitable links and nine representatives of private companies.
	Quarterly returns of all ministerial meetings are published on our website, following Cabinet Office guidelines and from May 2010 to March 2011 can be found at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/who/ministers/transparency/

Legal Opinion

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on (a) legal advice and (b) instructing counsel in (i) 2007, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010 and (iv) the first six months of 2011; how many times (A) her Department was taken to court and (B) a decision taken by her Department was subject to a judicial review; and what the outcome was of each such (1) case and (2) review.

Richard Benyon: The Department's records do not separate out the cost of legal advice from other expenditure on legal services, but the full net cost of the Department's in house legal team is shown in the following table, with figures rounded to the nearest £1,000. Presenting this by calendar year (as opposed to financial year) and including expenditure on legal advice that may have occurred outside the in-house legal team in these years would incur disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Net cost of in house team (£) 
			 2007-08 8,429,000 
			 2009-10 8,256,000 
			 2010-11 7,205,000 
			 2011-12 (April to June) 1,764,000 
		
	
	The figures in the above table include payments made to external counsel.
	The following table shows only those payments made to external counsel in the calendar years specified. They include costs relating to representation in court and not legal advice alone. It would be disproportionately costly to identify these types of costs separately.
	
		
			  Payments to external counsel (£) 
			 2007 533,071 
			 2009 602,861 
			 2010 425,126 
			 2011 (first six months) 377,010 
		
	
	The figures in both the above tables include the cost of internal and external legal services provided to executive agencies. It would be disproportionately costly to disaggregate the figures for DEFRA from its executive agencies.
	The Department's records do not identify cases in which the Department has been taken to court (and the outcome) as distinct from other cases, such as those that the Department has brought against others and cases resolved under a formal pre-action protocol. To disaggregate cases brought against the Department and their outcome would incur disproportionate cost.
	The number of times the Department's decisions have been subject to judicial review and the outcome of these cases since 2009 are as follows:
	
		
			  Number Outcome 
			 2009 15 12 unsuccessful challenges 3 successful challenges 
			 2010 6 2 unsuccessful challenges 2 successful challenges 2 settled 
			 2011 (first six months) 4 3 unsuccessful challenges 1 ongoing 
		
	
	To provide figures for 2007 would incur disproportionate cost.

Poultry: EU Law

George Freeman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on EU-wide implementation of the EU laying hens directive by the 2012 deadline; and if she will make a statement.

James Paice: The UK is fully engaged with the Commission and other member states in finding a practical enforcement solution to large scale non-compliance. The cage ban was an agenda item at the Agriculture Council meeting held on 14 November 2011 which I attended. Disappointingly little progress was made and discussions are continuing.
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), wrote jointly with nine other concerned member states to the European Commission in September. They urged the Commission to act quickly to protect those producers across the EU who will have complied with the ban, from the risk of competitive distortion in favour of those who will have maintained illegal production after 1 January 2012.

Fire Services: Costs

Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which fire authorities are paying the leasing costs of regional control centres; and how much each is paying each month.

Bob Neill: There are nine regional control centres. The lease costs of five are paid directly by DCLG. For the other four, DCLG grant fund the fire and rescue services, who then pay the lease costs themselves. The amounts currently involved are shown in the following table.
	The National Audit Office report of 1 July 2011, “The Failure of the FiReControl project”, states on the empty buildings:
	"The Department's failure to manage the project as a whole has resulted in the creation of empty regional control centres. The nine regional control centres were purpose-built to house the new computerised equipment and were designed specifically for that purpose. The Department's decision to prioritise the procurement of the centres over the IT system at an early stage meant that the first centres were completed in June 2007, just three months after the IT contract had been awarded".
	Our aim is now to achieve the best possible value for money for the tax payer from these buildings. One control centre has been assigned to the fire service, in London. They are due to move in shortly. DCLG is working with a number of fire and rescue authorities and other emergency services who have expressed an interest in taking on a regional control centre, in order to make good use of the buildings. The decision as to whether fire and rescue services use the buildings is entirely a local matter.
	DCLG have reduced the facilities management costs for the buildings by 25% and utilities by 35%, and will look to make further savings where appropriate.
	
		
			 Regional control centre Lease costs per month (£) 
			 North East Regional Control Centre (DCLG grant to Durham Fire Authority) (1)107,033 
			 North West Regional Control Centre (DCLG grant to Greater Manchester Fire Authority) (2)142,017 
			 London Regional Control Centre (DCLG grant to Greater London Authority) (1)225,263 
			 East Midlands Regional Control Centre (DCLG grant Leicestershire Fire Authority) (1)110,849 
			 South East Regional Control Centre (DCLG pay directly) (3)121,000 
			 South West Regional Control Centre (DCLG pay directly) (3)102,372.53 
			 East of England Regional Control Centre (DCLG pay directly) (3)113,329.44 
			 West Midlands Regional Control Centre (DCLG pay directly) (3)114,763.87 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Control Centre (DCLG pay directly) (3)100,531.20 
			 (1) Includes rent, utilities and estates costs. (2) Includes rent, utilities, estates and facilities management costs. (3) Includes rent.

Gurkhas: Aldershot

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how he plans that his recently announced £1.5 million funding to ease the pressure on Aldershot as a result of Gurkha immigration will be spent.

Andrew Stunell: The new £1.5 million fund will support the successful integration of retired Gurkha soldiers and their dependants, who, having served in the British Army, now wish to settle in the United Kingdom.
	My officials will be contacting authorities with major Gurkha populations, the Gurkha Welfare Trust and other Gurkha charities to discuss how this fund can be used most effectively to help address need and support wider settlement. Further meetings are due to take place over the next week. We will make a further announcement in due course.

Housing: Disadvantaged

Michael Dugher: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment his Department has made of the effect of housing supply on levels of social exclusion; and what steps his Department plans to take to address such effects.

Grant Shapps: Good quality, suitable, and well located housing, is fundamentally important to social inclusion and social mobility. One of the most important things each generation can do for the next is to build high-quality homes that will stand the test of time. By the end of the last Government's tenure, however, housebuilding rates had reached lows not seen in peacetime since the 1920's. This is not sustainable and not fair on young people and families. This Government are putting their full weight behind efforts to help the housebuilding industry get back to working at its full capacity. Laying The Foundations—The Government's Housing Strategy for England was published on Monday 21 November. The strategy sets out a bold new approach to get the housing market moving again, whilst also laying the foundations for a more responsive, effective and stable housing market in the future.

PAYE: Pilot Schemes

Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations are participating in the HM Revenue and Customs pilot of real time information for PAYE; and what the expected duration is of the pilot.

David Gauke: The employers involved in the Pilot are volunteers and have been chosen to be a representative group of organisations operating PAYE. They range in size and complexity from those with one employee to very large complex employers with many employees or pensioners. Those participating include local government banks, payroll bureaux and agents, retail and manufacturing, farmers, universities, colleges and schools, charities, hotels, film companies, software developers, pension providers and services companies. This is not an exhaustive list. It is not possible to name the organisations as those participating in the Pilot have not given their consent to disclosure.
	The Pilot is expected to last one year. The Department is exploring whether more employers and pension providers could be brought into RTI during 2012-13 if the Pilot is working well.

Public Expenditure

Alistair Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of public spending per head of population in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in respect of (i) education, (ii) health, (iii) transport and (iv) policing.

Danny Alexander: holding answer 22 November 2011
	The latest statistics on identifiable public expenditure by sub-function, per head of population for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be found in tables B.5 to B.8 of the October 2011 National Statistics Public Expenditure Release published by Treasury. The figures are reproduced in the following table:
	
		
			 Table 1: Identifiable spending on selected services for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 
			 £ per head 
			   2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 England Education 1,179 1,261 1,338 1,424 1,446 
			  Health 1,515 1,631 1,749 1,877 1,900 
			  Transport 306 311 315 343 344 
			  Policing 248 250 270 276 272 
			        
		
	
	
		
			 Scotland Education 1,397 1,432 1,466 1,492 1,541 
			  Health 1,766 1,891 1,969 2,040 2,072 
			  Transport 529 551 529 562 536 
			  Policing 218 228 240 250 247 
			        
			 Wales Education 1,246 1,325 1,391 1,446 1,415 
			  Health 1,688 1,772 1,860 1,973 2,017 
			  Transport 300 314 344 384 400 
			  Policing 232 236 249 256 260 
			        
			 Northern Ireland Education 1,327 1,383 1,424 1,498 1,509 
			  Health 1,700 1,736 1,859 1,924 2,106 
			  Transport 222 296 305 310 360 
			  Policing 476 474 479 545 576 
			 Source: National Statistics

Taxation

Guto Bebb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to ensure that people who do not have internet access are able to obtain copies of their tax records by other means.

David Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs are committed to continue providing permanent, dedicated support to customers who are unable to access our services online. This support may be provided, for example, through the use of intermediaries or alternative channels.
	Customers wishing to gain access to their tax records can do so in accordance with the Data Protection Act guidelines. Customers should address their request to the 'Data Protection Officer', including enough details to enable us to verify their identity and locate the relevant information. Further information can be found by contacting HMRC and asking for a copy of leaflet DP/FS1 or on the HMRC website at the following link:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/dp-fs1.htm

Creative Industries

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what steps is he taking to ensure that the arts and creative industries can make use of dormant account money when it is invested in the Big Society Bank.

Edward Vaizey: Big Society Capital (BSC, formerly referred to as the 'Big Society Bank') set out in its outline proposal of May 2011, that it will use dormant account money to boost significantly the ability of the social sector to deal with social issues. BSC will act as a wholesale investor for social investment, investing capital in intermediaries so that they are able to invest in frontline organisations. There is no reason why intermediary organisations working in the arts and other creative sectors cannot apply to this fund and we will be working with our public bodies to encourage them to do so.

Museums: Libraries

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport 
	(1)  how much his Department plans to spend on (a) museums and (b) libraries in each of the next four years;
	(2)  how much his Department has spent on (a) museums and (b) libraries in each of the last five years.

Edward Vaizey: The following tables show the amount of funding the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has spent on museums and libraries from 2006-07 to 2010-11, and how much it plans-to spend from 2011-12 to 2014-15. The tables reflect: the grant-in-aid paid for the Department's national museums and the British Library from 2006-07 to 2010-11 and the funding allocated to these bodies in the October 2010 spending review settlement from 2011-12 to 2014-15. These figures can be seen on the Department's website at:
	http://www.transparency.culture.gov.uk/
	Updates will be published periodically in the same location; the funding allocated programmes to support museums and libraries—Renaissance in the Regions, Strategic Commissioning and DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund from 2006-07 to 2014-15; the funding allocated to the Department's grant-funded museums from 2006-07 to 2014-15.
	
		
			 Grant in  a id 
			 £ million 
			 Body 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 British Museum 42.929 44.893 50.943 48.348 46.343 
			 Natural History Museum 43.135 45.165 52.887 51.186 48.586 
			 Imperial War Museum 20.613 22.177 23.888 24.163 23.910 
			 National Gallery 23.985 25.597 26.369 27.287 28.201 
			 National Maritime Museum(1) 17.008 18.491 19.750 19.240 19.002 
			 National Museums Liverpool 21.203 22.326 22.488 23.643 23.712 
			 National Portrait Gallery 7.031 7.038 7.693 7.744 7.577 
			 National Museum of Science and Industry 37.329 38.484 39.158 40.608 40.153 
			 Tate Gallery 34.124 45.929 61.385 55.987 54.729 
			 Victoria and Albert Museum 39.112 42.262 44.860 44.761 44.318 
			 Wallace Collection 3.528 4.156 4.228 4.301 4.212 
			 Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester 4.059 4.171 4.788 4.987 4.882 
			 Museum of London (transferred to GLA April 2008) 7.931 8.809 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Sir John Soane's Museum 1.115 1.339 1.339 1.181 1.169 
			 Horniman Museum 3.932 4.350 4.757 4.566 4.518 
			 Geffrye Museum 1.740 1.956 1.748 1.791 1.773 
			 Royal Armouries 7.814 8.917 8.264 8.474 8.389 
			 Total Museums 316.588 346.060 374.545 368.267 361.474 
			       
			 British Library 102.643 106.480 106.947 109.464 105.847 
			 (1) This include the ring-fenced allocation for National Historic Ships. 
		
	
	
		
			 Spending review settlement 
			 £ million 
			 Body 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 
			 British Museum 54.664 44.016 43.393 43.267 
			 Natural History Museum 46.480 45.760 45.204 45.172 
			 Imperial War Museum 21.706 21.436 21.239 21.273 
			 National Gallery 26.744 26.320 25.980 25.911 
			 National Maritime Museum(1) 17.058 16.848 16.693 16.723 
			 National Museums Liverpool 21.875 21.561 21.323 21.327 
			 National Portrait Gallery 7.398 7.277 7.183 7.172 
			 National Museum of Science and Industry 37.582 37.026 36.602 36.596 
			 Tate Gallery 35.305 34.912 34.837 33.441 
		
	
	
		
			 Victoria and Albert Museum 41.355 40.705 40.203 40.167 
			 Wallace Collection 2.983 2.946 2.918 2.922 
			 Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester 3.998 3.927 3.871 3.860 
			 Museum of London (transferred to GLA April 2008) n/a n/a n/a n/a 
		
	
	
		
			 Sir John Soane's Museum 1.130 1.111 1.096 1.094 
			 Horniman Museum 4.275 4.199 4.139 4.127 
			 Geffrye Museum 1.674 1.645 1.621 1.616 
			 Royal Armouries 7.901 7.773 7.673 7.662 
			 Total Museums 332.128 317.462 313.975 312.330 
			      
			 British Library 107.473 96.287 93.544 93.407 
			 (1) This include the ring-fenced allocation for National Historic Ships. 
		
	
	
		
			 Allocation 
			 £ million 
			 Programme 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 
			 DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund(1) 2 2 2 2 2 n/a 2.000 n/a 2.000 
			 Renaissance in the Regions 32 45 46.215 47.463 47.04 45.567 44.725 44.050 43.914 
			 Strategic Commissioning 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.56 2.373 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 (1) The DCMS/Wolfson Fund, financed equally by Government and the Wolfson Foundation, supports projects which improve the quality of displays, public spaces, collection interpretation and disabled access in museums and galleries across England. 
		
	
	
		
			 Allocation 
			 £ million 
			 Grants to smaller museums 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 
			 Design 0.483 0.503 0.414 0.425 0.424 0.328 0.257 0.202 0.163 
			 NCMME 2.528 2.809 2.731 2.805 2.794 2.707 2.657 2.616 2.608 
			 People's History 0.156 0.164 0.168 0.173 0.173 0.168 0.164 0.162 0.162 
			 Tyne and Wear 1.861 2.326 2.362 2.399 2.848 1.918 1.893 1.872 1.868 
			 Football Museum (ceased funding from 2010-11) 0.100 0.100 0.103 0.105 0.105 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Total 5.128 5.902 5.778 5.907 6.344 5.121 4.971 4.852 4.801 
		
	
	This Department has policy responsibility for public libraries but core funding for public libraries is paid to the 151 library authorities in England as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement, administered by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
	Until October 2011 the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) was responsible for library development and improvement. Grant-in-aid was used to deliver the Future Libraries Programme supporting 10 projects with a maximum of £10,000 per project to help library services face financial challenges.
	MLA's responsibility for libraries was transferred to Arts Council England (ACE) and on 9 November ACE launched a second Libraries Development Initiative. It will run between March 2012 and March 2013 supporting around 10 projects with a maximum of £20,000 per project to create vibrant, sustainable 21(st) century library service.

Olympic Games 2012: Finance

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what proportion of the 2012 Olympic athletes' village will be funded by (a) public investment and (b) private investment.

Hugh Robertson: The construction cost of the Olympic village is estimated at £1.1 billion. This includes Olympic related costs such as re-fitting the accommodation after the games and athlete use, for long-term legacy occupation. All these costs are initially funded by the public investment. Of the 2,818 new homes being created, 1,379 have been sold to affordable housing provider Triathlon Homes, for £268 million and the remaining 1,439 homes were recently sold to Qatari Diar/Delancey (QDD) Joint Venture for £557.5 million. Triathlon's investment includes a grant of £110 million from the Homes and Communities Agency. These receipts of at least £826 million more than cover the normal construction and development costs of the village but not the abnormal costs of the village project, which include having to construct the whole development at one time for use by athletes at games-time, the need to hold all of the apartments unsold during game-time and the need to extensively refit the accommodation post-games from athletes use to residential use. It is important to note, the QDD agreement also provides for the public purse to benefit from a share in any profits arising from future improvements in the property markets. We cannot, therefore, assess the total cost of the village to the public purse at this time because we will recoup costs in the future. However, the overall financial outturn on the Olympic village is in line with previous forecasts and within the overall public sector funding package for the games.

Departmental Manpower

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of staffing reductions on his Department's performance and productivity.

Philip Hammond: The Defence Transformation programme, which is taking forward the structural and organisational changes flowing from the strategic defence and security review and the Levene review, is intended to enable the Department to manage the impact of the planned staffing reductions by providing the mechanism to match resources and outputs.
	Priorities will be rigorously examined, non-essential work will be stopped, and other work will be done in different ways—including through outsourcing, organisational restructuring, and rationalisation. The single services are modelling their future manpower to minimise the effect on operational effectiveness.

Children: Protection

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the possible additional risk to child protection of the extension of the shared accommodation rate of local housing allowance to (a) 25 to 34 year olds who are (i) parents with part-custody of their children and (ii) women up until the latest stage of pregnancy and (b) other 25 to 34 year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply.
	It is not possible to assess any increased risk to children by extending the age threshold of the shared accommodation rate. The equality impact assessment of the increase to the shared accommodation rate age threshold, available on the DWP website at:
	http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-hb-shared-accommodation-age-threshold.pdf
	contains estimates of the impacts of this measure at both Government office region and local authority area level but does not look at the implications for child protection.
	Further financial assistance is available from local authorities through discretionary housing payments when they consider that additional help with housing costs is needed. Local authorities often award such payments to single pregnant women to cover a temporary housing benefit shortfall on moving into larger accommodation in anticipation of the birth of their child.

First Aid: Education

Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many schools first aid is taught to pupils.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 22 November 2011
	The Department does not collect this information centrally. However, schools teach first aid within non statutory personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education. Pupils are taught how to recognise and follow health and safety procedures, ways of reducing risk and minimising harm in risky situations and how to use emergency and basic first aid.
	We are reviewing personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education, including sex and relationships education. The internal review is considering how to improve the quality of teaching; the core outcomes which we expect PSHE to achieve and the core of knowledge and awareness that the Government should expect pupils to acquire at school. It is looking at existing research and also welcomes submissions of evidence and good practice before 30 November this year.

Pupils: Disadvantaged

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils in each education authority area with selective grammar schools receives the pupil premium in (a) each of the grammar schools and (b) each of the other secondary schools in the area.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 21 October 2011
	Information on the percentage of pupils eligible for the deprivation pupil premium in each local authority with at least one grammar school has been placed in the House Libraries for (a) each grammar school and (b) other state-funded secondary schools in those authorities.
	Information on the numbers of service children and looked after children eligible for the pupil premium is not released at school level.

Schools: Sports

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much funding has been allocated to schools to pay for day release of PE teachers to organise sport in primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 22 November 2011
	Each eligible school will receive £7,600 per year in the two academic years 2011/12 and 2012/13 to release a PE teacher for one day a week to work with local primary schools to increase opportunities in competitive sport and to encourage greater take up of the School Games.

Schools: Sports

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many young ambassadors have taken part in organising sporting activities in each local authority area in each school year since 2006-07; how many he anticipates will take part in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 22 November 2011
	The Department does not collect this information. The role of young ambassadors is to act as advocates and role models by using the power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to encourage other young people to take up sport and physical activity. This includes: increasing participation in school sport; promoting healthy lifestyles; promoting the Olympic and Paralympic values; and supporting the delivery of the School Games. As part of this work, many young ambassadors will help to organise sporting activities.

Teachers: Pensions

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of active members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme earn up to £15,000 per annum.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 15 November 2011
	Figures provided by Teachers' Pension show that as of 31 March 2011 there were 92,578 active members with salaries up to £15,000.

Teachers: Pensions

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people were making contributions to the teachers' pension scheme on the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many people were making such contributions 12 months previously.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 22 November 2011
	The Teachers' Pensions Scheme (England and Wales) Annual Accounts provide the most current full year figures for active membership of the Teachers' Pension Scheme.
	The 2010-11 accounts show that as of 31 March 2010 there were 658,351 active members and as of 31 March 2009 there were 628,344 active members.

Teachers: Pensions

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of active members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme earning less than £15,000 per year (a) are female and (b) work part-time.

Nick Gibb: holding answer 22 November 2011
	In the financial year 2010-11 there were 92,578 active members with salaries up to £15,000. Of these 73,283, were female and 92,284 worked part-time.

Teachers: Pensions

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of a teacher's pensionable pay is deducted in pension contributions.

Nick Gibb: The current employee contribution to the Teachers' Pension Scheme is 6.4% of pensionable salary. The Department is currently considering responses to its recent consultation to increase employee contributions to the TPS from 1 April 2012. The increases would average 3.2% but would be tiered, so that those who earn more will pay more and the lowest earners will be protected.

Export Controls: Arms Trade

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make it his policy to promote the addition of (a) electric-shock stun-cuffs and other body worn electric-shock devices and (b) spiked batons and spiked shields to the list of items in Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment or torture that are prohibited from import or export; and if he will promote inclusion in the Regulation of enhanced controls on drugs used for carrying out the death penalty by lethal injection; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: The Committee for Common Rules for Exports of Products (Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005) met on 16 November 2011 to discuss the Commission's proposals to add electric-shock cuffs and other body worn electric-shock devices and spiked batons to the list of items whose import and export are prohibited, and to add specified drugs that could be used for the purposes of execution by lethal injection to the list of items for which an export licence is required. The Government supported the proposals. Subject to final approval of the member states the Commission indicated that they intend to bring the amendments into force before the end of this year.

Postal Services

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what additional services the Government has begun to provide through the Post Office network as part of its objective to make the network a front office for Government since May 2010.

Edward Davey: This Government were clear in its November 2010 policy statement that it supports Post Office Ltd's ambition to provide more services on behalf of local and national Government.
	Post Office Ltd has shown good progress against this ambition. For example; it has recently begun providing services to Westminster council after bidding successfully for a contract for a number of ‘front office’ services; it has worked with The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on three pilots; and has recently begun providing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on behalf of the Public Carriage Office. It has also been successful in securing additional services which have not yet gone live—for example face-to-face registrations for some local authority staff.

Diabetes

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to support the establishment of citizen commissions to advise, report and make decisions on issues affecting people with diabetes as part of his proposed health and wellbeing boards; and if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that there is adequate youth representation on such commissions and boards. [R]

Paul Burstow: Health and wellbeing boards will promote joined up commissioning that will support integrated provision of services across health, public health and social care. This should mean that groups such as diabetes service users should experience health and care services that are better joined up and better meet their needs as individuals.
	Health and wellbeing boards will have a legal duty to involve users and the public when developing the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and joint health and wellbeing strategy and to pay due regard to the public sector Equality Duty. We also expect local HealthWatch organisations to use their membership on health and wellbeing boards to play a role in ensuring the voices of the whole community including young people are heard and fed into the work of the boards. We are exploring with early implementer health and wellbeing boards how they can embed public engagement in their work, including with young people, and with some HealthWatch pathfinders who are focusing on how local HealthWatch can be most effective in understanding and representing the voice of the whole community including young people.

Injuries: Dogs

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  whether data on the cost to the public purse of treating dog attacks is held by individual health trusts;
	(2)  what assessment he has made of long-term trends in the cost to the public purse of treating injuries caused by dog attacks.

Simon Burns: The Department does not require individual national health service trusts to report on costs associated with treating patients admitted to hospital as a result of a dog attack. However, the hon. Member may wish to contact trusts directly to confirm whether they hold this information.
	The Department has not made an assessment of trends in respect of the costs of treating these injuries. However, Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been working closely with Government and non-government organisations to prepare a package of measures to encourage more responsible dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. This work is nearing completion and an announcement will be made by that Department shortly.

Mercury: Health Hazards

Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of any ban on the use of dental amalgam; and if he will make a statement. [R]

Simon Burns: A ban would be detrimental to the delivery of high quality dental services particularly where patients required replacement of existing amalgam fillings. In February 2009, the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment programme agreed on the need to develop a global legally binding instrument that
	“protects human health and the global environment from the release of mercury and its compounds by minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating global anthropogenic release to air water and land”.
	The work to prepare this instrument is being undertaken by an intergovernmental negotiating committee. We are seeking to reach an agreement by which dental amalgam will continue to be available within any additional measures to control the disposal of waste and emissions.

Energy: Business

Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of the potential effects of planned mitigation measures for energy-intensive industries facing increased energy prices as a result of the introduction of the carbon floor price;
	(2)  what lessons his Department has learnt from Germany on ensuring that energy-intensive industries can operate competitively in the UK; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  which energy-intensive industries will receive mitigation to counteract the effect of the carbon floor price on their production costs; and what plans there are to extend measures to gas-intensive industries in the future.

Gregory Barker: I am working closely with Government colleagues to deliver the commitment the Government gave earlier this year to create a package of measures to support those energy intensive industries whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. We will announce details before the end of the year.

Energy: Business

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 
	(1)  what plans he has to make the UK a more competitive environment for energy-intensive industries following the Minister for Climate Change's recent visit to Germany;
	(2)  whether mitigation measures will enable the UK's energy-intensive industries to compete on a level playing field internationally following the introduction of the carbon price floor; and what plans there are to extend such measures to the UK's gas-intensive industries in the future.

Gregory Barker: I am working closely with Government colleagues to deliver the commitment the Government gave earlier this year to create a package of measures to support those energy intensive industries whose international competitiveness is most affected by our energy and climate change policies. We will announce details before the end of the year.

Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the average cost per household was of the feed-in tariff scheme between April 2010 and October 2011.

Gregory Barker: Ofgem estimate that the cost of the FITs scheme for 2010-11 was £14.4 million. Based on 26.3 million domestic customers, and domestic supply representing 38% of total electricity supply this would have added approximately 21p to a domestic consumer's annual electricity bill for 2010-11.

Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of how much the feed-in tariff added to energy prices in percentage terms in each of the last three years.

Gregory Barker: Ofgem estimate feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme costs for financial year 2010-11 (the first year of the FITs scheme) were £14.4 million. Based on 26.3 million domestic customers, and domestic supply representing 38% of total electricity supply this would have added approximately 21p (less than 1%) to a domestic consumer's annual electricity bill for 2010-11.

Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much was paid to generators of renewable energy under his Department's feed-in tariff scheme in quarter (a) one and (b) two of 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

Gregory Barker: Ofgem estimate generation and export tariff payments (deemed and metered) for installations under the FIT scheme in Q1 of FIT Year 2 (April-June 2011) to be £10,101,593.26.
	The corresponding data for Q2 of FITs Year 2 has not been published yet.
	It should be noted that this estimate is based on payments data which were provided by FIT suppliers as part of the levelisation process. The periodic levelisation process uses payments claimed rather than payments made.

Solar Power: Feed-in Tariffs

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what information his Department holds on (a) rates paid, (b) how long scheme have operated, (c) installed capacity and (d) how much average domestic power bills have increased in other EU member states with solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff schemes in the last five years.

Gregory Barker: The Department has met with and discussed as well as researched a range of other feed-in tariff schemes which are available in other countries. Every scheme is different and the amount of information available to us varies. We have rate information, length of operation and some data on installed capacity for a good number of schemes; all this information is publicly available. We do not hold any information on how much average domestic power bills have increased in other EU member states with solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff schemes in the last five years.